OATdb Archive

2009 - 2010

Curriculum And Instruction, Department Of

Goal
Program Quality And Effectiveness
Program Quality and Effectiveness

Objective
Candidates Will Be Able To Plan An Effective Lesson.
The percentage of candidates receiving a score of "3" on the Methods Block/Instructional Methods lesson plan, in each of the Curriculum and Instruction program areas, will exceed 85%.

Indicator
Pass Rates On Methods Block/Instructional Methods Lesson Plan
During the classes of Methods Block, first semester senior year or during the Instructional Methods Course (CI 560), the students write multiple lesson plans. Each student selects the best lesson plan in each content area (math, English language arts, science, and social studies) to submit as their best representation of a Lesson Plan in that content area. The lesson plans are scored/evaluated on information documented in stating the lesson goals, objectives, rationale, standards, materials, classroom setting, student needs, focus, procedures, design of implementation, and closure of the lesson. The Lesson Plan assessment allows our candidates to demonstrate their understanding of: * Establishing a lesson framework; * Designing a supportive learning environment; * Incorporating Instructional strategies; and, * Implementing Evaluation strategies. Since the previous rubric did not allow an overall score, the rubric was updated for this academic year. So, an overall score will be available.

Criterion
Pass Rates On Methods Block/Instructional Methods Lesson Plan
At least 85% of candidates during the 2009-2010 academic year will achieve a score of "3" on the Methods Block/Instructional Methods Lesson Plan.

The Methods Block/Instructional Methods Lesson Plans is an appropriate format to measure a variety of learning outcomes. The content of the items in this assessment relate directly to the planning, implementation, and assessment of instruction that teachers encounter when teaching.

Finding
Desired Competence Was Accomplished In An Alternate Format.
The rubric was not redesigned so we were unable to find the overall percentage score for the assignment.  For this reason, the data presented will be presented in the format from the 08-09 format.

IDS Methods Block Lesson Plan:  Component #1 2.82, Component #2 2.78, Component #3 2.67, Component #4 2.71.

SED Methods Block Lesson Plan:  Component #1 2.84, Component #2 2.83, Component #3 2.76, Component #4 2.62.

Each of these component scores is well above 3, and if rounded, would be a 3.. Therefore, this objective was accomplished.

Additionally, we will redo the rubric for next year to reflect one score.

Action
Redesign Methods Block Lesson Plan
As previously stated, the rubric for the Methods Block Lesson Plan Assessment will be redesigned for the 10-11 academic year to reflect an overall score for each candidate.

For each program, the lowest component was Component #4- Implementing Evaluation Strategies.  Each program is researching new ways to incorporate assessment for learning into their program.

Objective
Candidates Will Be Able To Plan, Implement, Assess And Modify Effective Instruction.
The percentage of candidates receiving a score of "3" on their Teacher Work Sample, in each of the Curriculum and Instruction program areas, will exceed 85%.

Indicator
Pass Rates On Teacher Work Sample
The Teacher Work Sample (TWS), adapted from The Renaissance Partnership for Improving Teacher Quality Project (http://fp.uni.edu/itq), is a performance assessment designed to demonstrate evidence of Sam Houston State University candidates' ability to facilitate learning for all students. This sample illustrates the candidate's ability to plan, implement, modify and assess instruction during their student teaching semester. Prior to the student teaching semester, candidates choose one (12 to 14 week placement) or two (6 to 7 week placements). During the first 6 to 7 weeks of their placement, candidates are required to create and teach a unit as a Teacher Work Sample. After consulting with their mentor teacher about the unit focus, candidates teach a minimum of five lessons from the unit in their mentor's classroom. Additionally, the candidates are evaluated on their unit planning and teaching of unit lessons. They are also required to reflect on their decision-making and teaching practice including their impact on student learning. The Teacher Work Sample (TWS) focuses on seven teaching processes that are crucial for effective/reflective teaching and must be considered when planning for the learning of all students. Each process is defined by a performance standard, specific task, a student prompt and a rubric that identify the desired performance of the candidate related to that process.

Criterion
Teacher Work Sample (TWS) Scores
At least 85% of candidates during the 2008-2009 academic year will achieve a score 3 on the Teacher Work Sample.

Information on Scoring Procedures:

As recommended by the Renaissance Group, each candidate's Teacher Work Sample is blindly scored by a minimum of two trained scorers. Each scorer evaluates and assigns a score of three(target), two (acceptable), or one (unacceptable) to each indicator, Additionally an overall score of three, two or one is given to each of the seven processes as well as and an overall three, two or one to the entire Teacher Work Sample. If the first two scorers agree on the overall Teacher Work Sample score, the scoring process is complete. However, if the two scorers do not agree the Teacher Work Sample is scored for a third, possibly fourth time, until agreement is reached. For this reason, the data presented in the following charts represents the number of scorings not the number of Teacher Work Samples scored.

Once agreement is reached on the Teacher Work Sample score, the overall scores are sent to the student teachers. The following charts show the overall Teacher Work Sample scores for the student teachers.

Finding
Desired Competence Criteria Not Achieved, 69% Of Candidates During The 09-10 Academic Year Scored A "3" Pm Their Teacher Work Sample.
Even though the goal of 85% was not achieved, 99% of candidates did meet the minimum standard defined by the Teacher Work Sample by scoring either a "2" or "3". 

Action
Improving The Percentage Of Candidates Scoring "3" On The Teacher Work Sample.
Each semester, the faculty in Curriculum and Instruction plan and implement new strategies to assist the students in successfully completing the Teacher Work Sample.  This is evident in that 99% of all candidates met the minimum standard.  Even so, we strive to get all students to target.

Objective
The Candidate Will Demonstrate Mastery Of State Mandated Standards.
The percentage of candidates passing the Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities Certification Examination, in each of the Curriculum and Instruction programs, will exceed 80%.

Indicator
Pass Rates On Certification Examinations
All candidates seeking initial certification, advanced teacher certification, or certifications for other school personnel must take one or more of the Texas Examinations of Educator Standards (TExES). These examinations directly correspond to the state content competencies that have been identified for the certification desired. These content competencies are aligned with and based on the appropriate state standards the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) statements, which describe the state mandated curriculum for students. Each TExES examination is criterion-referenced and is designed to measure a candidate's level of content knowledge and skills appropriate for educators in the State of Texas.

Each test was collaboratively developed by the State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC), National Evaluation Systems, Inc. (NES), an independent corporation specializing in educational measurements, with additional participation by committees of Texas educators. Individual test items developed to measure the state competencies were reviewed and rated by the various committees of Texas educators to ensure appropriateness of content and difficulty, clarity, and accuracy. These committees also ensured that the test items matched the appropriate competencies and were free from potential ethnicity, gender, and regional biases. The committees also helped prepare scoring rubrics for written response items and training materials for those who would score the tests.

Separate standard-setting panels were convened to review statistical data about candidate scores from initial pilot studies of the tests during their development. Recommendations were forwarded to the SBEC, which made the final decisions about establishing passing scores. TExES examinations are centrally administered by SBEC and NES at pre-determined sites and on pre-established dates across Texas similar to many of the national achievement tests. This regime provides for a professional, equitable, and secure testing environment for candidates. Alternative testing arrangements are also permitted for those requiring special consideration. Sites are selected after a careful review of security and accessibility potential, and the quality of overall testing conditions. Tests are scored centrally.

Criterion
Pass Rates For All Pedagogy And Professional Responsibilities Examination (PPR)
Pass rates on all levels of the Pedagogy and Professional Examinations will increase by 2%age points. While the accountability system for the state examines scores for each completer cohort and provides for students to repeat the examination if they are not successful on the first attempt, the analysis of pass rates presented here represents the pass rates on the first attempt for all PPR exams taken in 2009-2010.

Finding
Desired Competence Criteria (increase Of 2 Percentage Points) Achieved By Some Programs.
See attached table.

Candidates have several more opportunities to pass this test before August 31, 2010.  It remains a possibility that all programs will meet the goal.

Action
Improve Candidate Pedagogy And Professional Responsibilities Certification Examination Scores
To improve our candidates PPR Scores, more focus will be placed on familiarizing each candidate with the PPR State Standards.  This focus will include:
*discussions about assignments and how they demonstrate mastery of the PPR Standards,
*practice PPR examination with remediation, and
*PPR exam review.

One specific area of weakness is the area of assessment.  For this reason, we will either add assessment courses to the programs or modify the existing assessment course to reflect best practices.

Goal
Visibility And Impact
Visibility and Impact

Objective
New Program Development
Develop new doctoral program in Instructional Technology

Indicator
Curriculum Submitted For New Doctoral Program In Instructional Technology
Research, write and submit all documentation for obtaining approval to implement new doctoral program in Instructional Technology.

Criterion
Continued Progress Toward Doctorate In Instructional Technology
Timely completion of all research, writing and information to be submitted to the Curriculum Committee for the 2010 University Curriculum cycle.

Finding
Desired Criteria Achieved, Doctorate Researched, Written And Ready To Submit For The 2010 Curriculum Cycle.
The Doctorate Writing Committee met weekly to plan, research and write the Doctorate of Instructional Technology.  As per the dates of the Curriculum Review Cycle, copies of all required forms will be forwarded to Dr. Karen Smith before July 19, 2010.  Then, forwarded to Mrs. White by July 30, 2010.  Then, to the COE Curriculum Committee before August 5, 2010.

Action
Continued Efforts To Gain Approval At All Levels For The Doctorate Of Instructional Technology.
Now that the Doctorate of Instructional Technology is written, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction will continue the process by entering the 2010 Curriculum Cycle.  For the 2010-2011 academic year, the Department will work to gain approval from the COE Curriculum Committee, the University Curriculum Committee and the Board of Regents.

Goal
Faculty Excellence
Faculty Excellence

Objective
Faculty Excellence
Increase Curriculum and Instruction faculty productivity through contributions to the field in publications and presentations.

Indicator
Increase In Ratio Of Publication To Professor
Annual professor to publication ratio and professor to presentation ratio for Curriculum and Instruction compared to 2008-2009.

Each professor will report on their FES document all publications and presentations. The total number of publications for all professors will be divided by the total number of professors. This will be converted to a percentage. This percentage will be compared to the percentage from the 2008-2009 FES reports. The same procedures will be followed for presentations.

Criterion
Faculty Publications
Ratio of Curriculum and Instruction faculty to publications will exceed the same ratio from the 2008-2009 academic year.

Finding
Desired Criteria (larger Than 2008-2009) Was Not Achieved.
Faculty Excellence

08-09 Testing Results  2.61

09-10 Testing Results  2.11

Difference  0.50

These publications appear in a mix of state, national and international journals.  We have increased the number of new faculty this year.  They are beginning to publish but did not have many publications at the beginning of the year. This number should improve next year as their productivity increases.

Criterion
Faculty Presentations
Ratio of Curriculum and Instruction faculty to presentations will exceed the same ratio from the 2008-2009 academic year.

Finding
Desired Presentation Criteria (larger Ratio Than 2008-2009) Was Achieved.
Faculty Excellence

08-09 Testing Results  4.46

09-10 Testing Results  5.1

Increase  .64

These presentations are a mix of state, national and international presentations.  Increasing the number of presentations is great for the department but it also exposes SHSU to more positive public awareness.

Action
Increase The Ratio Of Faculty To Publications And Presentations
Since faculty no longer need to advise on a regular basis or serve on as many departmental committees, more time is available for scholarship.  Junior faculty will be paired with senior faculty as writing/presenting partners to increase their productivity.


Update to previous cycle's plan for continuous improvement

Plan for continuous improvement During the 09-10 academic year, the Department of Curriculum and Instruction was very successful.  Not all goals were met at the predicted levels but students met or exceeded the minimum standards.  The faculty were very productive - publishing an average of 2 publications each as well as making an average of 5 presentations.  The new Doctoral Progam in Instructional Technology was researched and written.  It is ready to take to the curriculum committee when required.

Upcoming Tasks for the 10-11 academic year:

The rubric for the Methods Block Lesson Plan Assessment will be redesigned for the 10-11 academic year to reflect an overall score for each candidate.

Continue to implement strategies to improve our candiates' performance on the Teacher Work Sample.  Focus on minimum criteria being met but push for more target scores.  One specific area of weakness on the TWS is the area of assessment.  For this reason, we will either add assessment courses to the programs or modify the existing assessment course to reflect best practices

To improve certification exam scores, we will focus on remediation after the practice test.

We will take the new Doctorate to the Curriculum Committees.

Finally, Junior faculty will be paired with senior faculty as writing/presenting partners to increase their productivity.